Ron, I hope you don't mind, but I'm switching this one back to pianotech as well. Del > ....Does not this construction disallow any attempts at > >rebuilding in the future? How would one replace a pin block here? > > > >--- > >I don't see that the steel wood sandwich has to include a bonded in pinblock > >as shown. I think that a plate of this type of construction could include a > >more conventional pinblock. > >--- > > Seems to me that the bonded in pinblock is part of the structural > integrity. Still, it could be sawn out and replaced when necessary with no > more trouble than some existing "conventional" blocks. It's pretty well bonded to those thin steel sheets. Something is going to get damaged in the process, I think. As I said, it's a disposable piano--but we're learning to love those, right? > > > >Also the > >20% larger soundboard area is not necessarily a good thing if more of it is > >tone robbing without any sort of cut off bars or the like. ... I see that the bass > >bridge is ... at least partially, cantilevered. This seems to have resulted in a > >very short back scale length in order for them to get their bragging rights > >of a 62" long speaking length of A0. Who cares? > > I do, by gosh. I want tone bars! But that's just a marketing lever, and > doesn't really have anything to do with the plate construction. Looking at > the picture, it struck me that the outlined soundboard area of a > conventional piano is what you can see between the backposts anyway, not > the actual free soundboard area. Does that mean they don't pass the test for accuracy in marketing? Darn. > > > >Also the long bridge seems to be split in two to allow for the heavy plate > >strut. This must have an interesting affect on the tone in that area. > >The long bridge also appears to be very tall, if I'm getting the right picture > >from the pictures. I would be concerned about all that mass at the top end. > >--- > > That's what the block in the back is for - to tie the bridge sections > together. Done right, it shouldn't be a problem. As for all that mass in > the bridge in the top end, what have you got against extended sustain? <G> > > > > Some of the > >pictures made it look like the steel faces were on both sides of the core > >(which is what I would expect) and others made it look like the steel face was > >only on one side. Maybe it was just the camera angle. > > Camera angle, I think. Again, the strength would come from the layer of > steel on both sides of the core. Both sides--and extra behind the pinblock. > > > >'The structure allows the elimination of the conventional back frame and > >posts'. > > > >This is a subject that has been discussed before. This seems to assume that > >the purpose of the frame is to help support string load. I don't think that's > >the case, so I don't see any less reason to have a back frame on this piano > >than on a more conventional piano. > > But it doesn't say that the back frame and posts support string tension. > How about torsion? I'd be interested to compare a conventional plate > against this type for torsion resistance. I bet this sucker is hard to twist. That was the theory. And, according to the engineer I talked to, it worked. They were supposed to twist less than the standard Currier backs as they were being pulled to pitch. > > > >'15% more of the tuning pin to rest in the pinblock'. > > > >I don't see that as an advantage. If that's all you want, then use a longer > >tuning pin. The advantage which they fail to mention is, since the face plate > >appears to be thinnner than a typical casting, the distance of the string to > >the top of the pinblock can be less, resulting in less tuning pin bending. > > Absolutely. The benefit of an open face block. > > > >It wasn't clear to me from the pictures if the steel face plate over the > >tuning pin holes is counterbored, so that the tuning pins are not contacting > >the steel face, or if the hole is drilled through steel and pinblock and the > >tuning pin driven in so that it's contacting both. > > They look pretty big in one shot. I think (hope) they're big enough to > clear the pins. > > > >One additional thing that I found interesting about this plate is that it's > >gold. Since this is supposed to be the latest high tech thing why not make it > >look different? Why try to make it look like a conventional piano plate? > > Oh, but regular old gold cast iron don't have all those sparkly highlights, > do they? Maybe they felt they had a better chance of selling them if they > looked conventional enough to slip them by the piano technicians with most > not noticing. > > > >'Monolithic Construction'. > > > >I wasn't completely clear on what this was, but it sounds primitive (I think > >the marketing department should have selected a different word). > > > >Phil F > > It does look pretty massive. How about integrated construction. An equal > opportunity plate. > > I see the piano also has a laminated soundboard, cross ply laminated > bridges (horizontal, I think I can barely make out in one shot), and > crowned ribs. Wow! > > Now what exactly was it that didn't fly with this piano? > > Ron N Lousy scaling, sloppy assembly and construction, difficult tuning--especially in the treble, terrible crossover, poor low bass. Those are the reasons that come to mind easily. None of which couldn't have been fixed with some reasonably intelligent design work by someone who understood the basics of how pianos work. Del
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC